Employee Of French TV Station Fired For Criticizing Three Strikes Plan

from the yikes dept

I always thought that French labor laws made it quite difficult to get fired. I guess that's until you express your opinion that a "three strikes" law that would kick people off the internet is a bad idea. Yann brings to our attention a story about a guy who worked on the web side of giant French TV network TF1 and wrote his parliamentary representative an email from his personal gmail account, explaining why he thought a "three strikes" law was a bad idea. His rep, Francoise de Panafieu, who supports Sarkozy (members of the same party) apparently forwarded the letter to the French minister of culture (who is a major backer of the law), Christine Albanel, who then sent it back to the legal department at TF1... causing the guy to get fired (link in French, here's the Google translation). TF1 supposedly claimed that the reason for the dismissal was that it fully supported the law (though it had never made that position public, and as a news organization, was supposed to be impartial to the bill), claiming that it was in its own economic best interests to support "three strikes."

deduct intelligence

The french have never been particularly bright anyway so this is just more of the same stupid french crap. Thats how they let the Nazis control them, and now they are doing it again. They dont deserve us to help them out ever again. Im never going to help a stupid french person ever again. They can go get lost and drop off the face of the earth the idiots.

Re: deduct intelligence

The americans have never been particularly bright anyway so this is just more of the same stupid american crap. Thats how they let the Vatican control them, and now they are doing it again. They dont deserve us to help them out ever again. Im never going to help a stupid american person ever again. They can go get lost and drop off the face of the earth the idiots.

Re: Re: Re: Re: deduct intelligence

"particularly w/all of the pro-Nazi people in government "

Name me one PRO NAZI politician of national office in America in the last 30 years? Hell Ill even give you 50 years? While your at it, can you name the 175+ congress members (almost all of the senate and many house members) who attended AIPACs recent rally. I can find you many interviews where President Obama was repeatedly asked to pledge his undying allegiance and unending support for Israel . . . I don’t recall any such questions about the Vatican or national socialism? If you want to know who runs government, look at the lobbies and they dont get any bigger or more powerful then AIPAC. Sadly if they continue to exploit this influence on American foreign policy, I fear they will eventually face a backlash that will be counterproductive for Israel and the United States.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: deduct intelligence

Pro-Nazi politicians in American Office:

1. Senator Prescott Bush, one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corp., siezed in 1942 under charges of trading with the enemy

2. Every member of the Rockefeller family since 1940, and probably before. In '41, Standard Oil was found to have a corporate "marriage" w/IG Farben, a Pro-Nazi firm that produced the famed Zyklon-B gas, which was manufactured w/slave Jewish labor, amongst other things.

3. Too much information on the Ford Family to even begin to list here.

4. Allen Dulles administered Operation Paperclip, which brought the US half of plundered Nazi scientists (the other half going to the USSR). Most subsequently went to work for NASA, beginning the space race.

5. Sec. of State John Dulles, again too much to list, but you can start w/the fact that he provided the Nazi regime with nearly a billion dollars through the Sullivan & Cromwell firm.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: deduct intelligence

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: deduct intelligence

"Name me one PRO NAZI politician of national office in America in the last 30 years? Hell Ill even give you 50 years?"

I'll just take the first example, for fun:

2009 minus 50 = 1959. Prescott Bush serverd until 1964. None of the them are close to 50 years? I would disagree. Dulles was Sec. of State until '59, Alan Dulles was Director of the CIA until '61, and Rockefellers litter govt. to this day.

I don't have people telling me I'm wrong, but how do my answers not fall into the time scope of the request?

Re: Re: deduct intelligence

...In case you forgot, France bailed our behinds out of the Revolutionary War. Without support from France we'd still be British. So I'd say were even.

I often find myself getting kicked and pushed out of the bed in the middle of the night by my wife for dreaming about sexy french women with whips and chains. Just like yourself, I tell her in the morning I was dreaming about the Revolutionary War. She doesn't believe me. But, that's what I get for marrying into a Russian family. **Sigh**

Dismisal and th French

So the guy was dismissed because he expressed an opinion that was opposed to the employer's? Apparently the concept of free speech does not apply in France?

And, I don't think the French are a particularly stupid group; no more so than any other. But they do seem to have terrible luck with their governments. In the Revolution, the masses rose up and toppled (or de-topped) the reigning government. Maybe it's now time for a new revolution to make a government that is truly responsible to the people.

Re: Re: Dismisal and th French

I agree, the major issue here is that no one in the government (and it sounds like this guy was relatively in cahoots with TF1) should have sent the email to TF1. That person really needs to be forced to resign. TF1 kinda sorta has the right to fire who it wants (though of course there's a lawsuit waiting to happen), but they never should have seen the email in the first place.

Re: Dismisal and th French

"So the guy was dismissed because he expressed an opinion that was opposed to the employer's? Apparently the concept of free speech does not apply in France?"

ok Im getting tired of pointing this out but you have no such protection in the United States either, not from your employer. If you say things publicly that are counter productive to your employers interest, you are taking a risk of being fired, whether you live in France or America.

Re: Re: Dismisal and th French

The guy was apparently fired because he expressed an opinion that was opposed to the views of his employer: . I believe that in the US the employer would need to state that the employee was somehow disruptive to the workplace not that simply that the employee's views were at odds with the employer's views (most of the US would be unemployed if that were the case). And, as pointed out earlier, that employee was fired apparently because of a private communication with his government representative, who then violated a trust, not because the person was doing something like spouting off in the office or something of the sort.

Re: Re: Dismisal and th French

>> If you say things publicly that are counter productive to your employers interest, you are taking a risk of being fired, whether you live in France or America.

If that was the case I would agree. The guy didn't go PUBLIC. Not like he got interviewed on TV, did a public blog post with his name out in the clear, wrote an op-ed piece, etc., he wrote to a representative about his viewpoint on an upcoming vote. That representative then totally abused their power and passed the letter on to his boss. While I'm sure a letter to a rep. is public, most would assume that your letter of viewpoint wouldn't be sent to your boss.

Re: Dismisal and th French

It's hard for me to tell from the fractured English that the Google translator pushed out, but it seems that he wasn't fired for the E-Mail itself but for writing the E-Mail in a way that could be misinterpreted as representing the opinions of his company. It would have to be something really obvious, like starting with "I represent TF1", to justify firing.

Re: Re: Re: Dismisal and th French

If I had a disagreement (civilly debated) face to face with my boss and I got fired over it, I could sue for wrongful termination. It is a thing that falls under free speech. Now, if I did something about the agreement, like violence or not doing what my boss told me (or wrote an E-Mail as falsely representing my company), then they would have reasonable justification for termination.

Re: Re: Re: Dismisal and th French

When you go on your employer's property you DO represent the employer, even if you're [still/already] off duty. Put another way, you're rightfully expected to uphold the rights and interests of your employer, not the other way 'round.

In any event, constitutional rights like the First Amendment don't apply between pvt parties. Their application is limited to govt-citizen relations. Employers, other than govt employers, couldn't care less abt your civil rights, nor do they need to.

Moreover, with limited exceptions, govt records are public records. As such they're open for all to see, whereby it's not wrong for a govt employee to publicize or otherwise disseminate records or notes rec'd by govt to any member of the public, including an employer.

Re: Dismisal and th French

I actually worked for a French company for all of about 7 months. (Obviously it didn't end well) Yeah, stupid isn't quite the right word but they are very, very strange. There were even a few French people who had lived here maybe 10, 15 years, and they'd sometimes comment on how "off" the people back at the home office were.

Free Speech?

Re: Free Speech?

"Do the French not have free speech, or it is located with their underarm deodorant in the abyss somewhere?
"

They have the SAME basic FREE SPEECH protections we have here in America (I dont believe he was jailed or even proesecuted for his speech was he?). If you think that free speech extends to protections from your employer, go tell your boss to fuck off and see what happens.

Re: Re: Free Speech?

I think free speech DOES extend to sending a private message to your elected governmental representative civilly expressing your view on a political subject. If I sent a message to my Senator about an issue they were debating and letting him know what I think and asking that he vote a certain way of the issue and he in turn sent that to my employer and I got fired - I'd win that huge lawsuit before it even went to court.

Free speech means being able to express (in a civil manner) your opinion about anything. It has never meant being able to tell your boss to fuck off or yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. Make some sense before you post something, will you?

Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

"I think free speech DOES extend to sending a private message to your elected governmental representative civilly expressing your view on a political subject. If I sent a message to my Senator about an issue they were debating and letting him know what I think and asking that he vote a certain way of the issue and he in turn sent that to my employer and I got fired - I'd win that huge lawsuit before it even went to court."

I dont think so (depending on how they came about knowlege of your opinion). No Company in America has to employ people who do not believe in its mission or business model. They can if they want too, but the law is not going to force them too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

“No Company in America has to employ people who do not believe in its mission or business model”
Every company in America has to be an equal opportunity employer regardless, if you have a Christian company that stats they are to follow god, they must higher a Jewish or Muslim interviewee if said person had the credentials for the position. Not giving them the job based on there religion IS against the law. Furthermore, one person’s opinion on a subject, even against company opinion, can not get one fired. There has to be other reasons such as performance or breach of company policy (which wouldn’t include difference of opinion). The company I am involved with is highly reliant on the car industry. They would like to see it thrive so that it can make money, I feel that they have dug there own grave. Those are a difference of opinions however they can not fire me because of it. I am protected by Free speech to think whatever I want to think and say.
As for this comment
“If you think that free speech extends to protections from your employer, go tell your boss to fuck off and see what happens”
This is about as dumb as a 3 winged bird tied to a kite trying to fly through a hurricane. You would not get fired because you do not have free speech, you would get fired for harassment! So this statement holds no water.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

Ever heard of Right to Hire? It means you can be fired at any time, no reason given. You can try to sue if you think you were terminated for an illegal reason, but good luck.

Also, there is a Ministry in St. Louis who has a requirement that all employees and contractors be active in their respective church. What about atheists/agnostics? No protection under th law for those without faith?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

Irrelevant classification. You're comparing a private faith-based non-profit organization--acting in direct accord with well established case law, which states over and over that a church can reasonably expect employees to be of the same faith--you're comparing that to a publicly held company. What a worthlessly invalid point!

Your one good point, regarding at-will employment, is generally valid, however it is clear from the article that this person was targeted for his political ideology - that throws the at-will argument out the window. If they found out, never mentioned the letter and simply gave him notice, they might have had ground to stand on regarding at-will employment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

Irrelevant how they came to know of my opinion. It is my personal opinion and I have the right to have it an express under the First Amendment. If I get fired for civilly expressing my personal views on personal time using a personal medium in a personal location - I win the lawsuit.

Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

Actually, you have NO right to free speech in the US (a common misconception). What you have is a guarantee that the US Government will pass no laws abridging free speech. Anyone else is free to abridge your speech as much as they like.

Re: Re: Re: Free Speech?

The government didn't abridge anything. He had his say, and they notified his employer that he'd had his say. What the employer chose to do about it had nothing to do with the government. If the government had passed a law saying that he couldn't send them a letter stating his view, THEN they would have abridged it. Whether he was wrongfully terminated is another matter, one between him, his employer and the courts.

Re: Thats what you get

Re: Re: Thats what you get

"What does Rush have to do with this? Nothing whatsoever? I thought so."

Rush makes a living spreading xenophobic nonsense, much like Mikes opening sentence. That kind of statement is expected from someone like Limbaugh (and the rest of talk radios igno-rotti ) who seemingly doesn’t even make the smallest attempt to actually know anything about which he talks. However, one expects a little more from Techdirt, I think that’s what he was trying to say anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Thats what you get

"Rush makes a living spreading xenophobic nonsense, much like Mikes opening sentence."

What? How the hell is Mike's opening statement xenophobic? He simply stated that their actions were totally the opposite of what he expected based upon his understanding of their laws. How is that xenophobic?

I like to challenge Mike as much as the next guy, but you're really pushing it here.

@pegr: Intelligent readers know how to look past the falsehoods above. If you want to see what moderated comments do to discussion, just go to Wired.com.
The "Registration" system, has killed any interesting discussion there. I am against registration not on priniciple, but depending on the site. This one definately does better without it.

That's pretty bad...

It's not like he went on the air ranting about his opinion. If all he did was raise his personal concern with his government representative, there should be no reason to fire him. The government rep, on the other hand, should be tossed in a dungeon.

Not sure why the assumption was made that Rush has anything to do with the opening statement.

While French labor laws made it quite difficult to get fired may be a strong way of looking at it, most employees in the US are 'at will' and that is determined at the state level so when looking at a country that prohibits at will I can see the point of the statement without bringing windbags into the process

France.

Job loss is not important point.

I think some of you are missing the real issue here, yes it weak that the guy lost his job, and will likely easy win a wrongful termination suit, despite the chuckleheads flapping you can't, if he can afford a lawyer he will be paid.

The more important issue is the exposure of the relationship between the government and the business he had recently worked. The situation brings up all sorts of interesting questions:

- Why is he forwarding government mail to the business? I'm sure if the employee called and asked for copy of his bosses emails to the government he wouldn't get to far.

- How much time is this official wasting on the narrow issue.

- How is the official being compensated for his efforts on behave of the company.

- It seems that the officials actions indicate that even more dubious activities may be occurring is there any ethics/audit investigations planned.

Additionally, what if the employee had decided to bluff and claim didn't write the letter, it seems this representative is quite brazen in thinking his actions will go unexamined. It may even entice someone to set him up for mail fraud, libel, torty interference, etc.

Opinions, opinions...

The guy will win a wrongful termination lawsuit, period. I bet my degree in Law over this one.

The government can also be sued since there was a breach of trust, but that's somewhat harder to pass. He can throw some more dirt on top of Sarkozy.

The French government is acting just like the true extremists they are. Even after removing the obvious connections between the govnt officials and major businesses you get an awesomely big soup of the usual curruption.

I'm an atheist, i try to keep imaginary mega wizards out of my life. Religions are based on dogmas which i believe... well, it sucks. Thinking for yourself should be a duty rather than a freedom, but that my extreme opinion, i just hate people trying to plant misinformed opinions on me, go figure...

Re: Opinions, opinions...

I'm french and I'm not agree with TF1, the employee has been fired because he wasn't agree with "HADOPI", a leg against pirates of Web... I said "TF1 is the channel of Sarkozy" :p ... It's unfair, but I don't watch TF1 because it's bad channel who spread so much American series repeat broadcasts i watch only when there is football :D

(sorry for my english i'm in college and i'm not sure if all words are good :p)

Just a heads up. I've been following that story and as it turns out, the rep basically asked the minister for help in answering the questions. Then, the minister's cabinet director forwarded the letter to TF1. The cabinet director is apparently getting close to joining the other guy on unemployment.

France does not have at-will employment. (Which sucks when you are young right out of college and can't prove you're worth a dime, but that is off topic) That guy most likely had a CDI which basically means he cannot be fire ever without gigantic benefits. Also, he will probably win a wrongful firing lawsuit which can order the company to rehire him.